Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41709494›Full record

ReviewHeadache2026

Integrating gepants into clinical practice for the acute treatment of migraine.

Richard B Lipton, David W Dodick, Linda Davis, Stephanie J Nahas, Peter J Goadsby

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Headache, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Richard B LiptonThe Saul R. Korey Department of Neurology, and The Montefiore Headache Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA.
David W DodickMayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9486-6790
Linda DavisKolvita Family Medical Group, Mission Viejo, California, USA.
Stephanie J NahasDepartment of Neurology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Peter J GoadsbyDivision of Biomedical Sciences, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

AbbVie
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the role of small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants) in the acute treatment of migraine, particularly in relation to triptan treatments.

backgroundTriptans have established efficacy and are widely prescribed for the acute treatment of migraine. However, triptans may not be recommended for some individuals due to cardiovascular contraindications and precautions, as well as other comorbidities, and many may discontinue triptans because of inadequate or inconsistent symptom relief or poor tolerability. Several gepants are also indicated for the treatment of migraine (both acute and preventive), and their demonstrated efficacy and safety may address some challenges associated with triptans.

methodsThis narrative review addresses considerations for the acute treatment of migraine through summarizing literature and data from preclinical studies and clinical trials of triptans and gepants.

resultsWe consider triptans and gepants, where available, first-line treatment options for the acute treatment of migraine. Triptans may be prescribed in the absence of contraindications, significant risk of cardiovascular disease, or risk for or history of medication-overuse headache. In those who have contraindications or precautions for triptans, those who do not have an adequate response to triptans, and those unable to tolerate them, gepants are often an appropriate option. The efficacy and safety of gepants for the acute treatment of migraine has been established through clinical trials and open-label extension studies and based on real-world evidence. Gepants have demonstrated efficacy and tolerability in triptan insufficient responders, perhaps because of their distinct mechanisms of action. Additionally, the safety of gepants, including relative cardiovascular safety, is supported in pivotal controlled trials and open-label extension trials. In experimental settings and through their use as preventive treatment for migraine, gepants appear unlikely to produce medication-overuse headache. In addition, one gepant (ubrogepant) has demonstrated efficacy in preventing headache onset when given during the prodrome, a finding that has not been demonstrated for triptans. A single-arm, open-label study of naratriptan given during the prodrome suggested fewer subsequent headaches, but interpretation is limited because there was no contemporaneous control group. Limited head-to-head clinical trials comparing gepants and triptans have not demonstrated significant differences. Prescribers of both triptans and gepants should be mindful of potential drug-drug interactions.

conclusionsKey advantages of gepants include their favorable tolerability, efficacy for the acute treatment of both the prodromal/premonitory phase (ubrogepant) and the headache phase of migraine (ubrogepant, rimegepant, zavegepant), lack of cardiovascular contraindications, and lack of association with medication-overuse headache. Disadvantages include limitations due to cost and access and CYP3A4 drug interactions for most gepants. Together, the advantages may help to optimize patient care and lead to better persistence and effectiveness in a real-world setting. Head-to-head studies are needed to clarify the comparative effectiveness of triptans and gepants.

Indexed as

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor AntagonistsMigraine DisordersTryptaminesAnimalsHumansPyridinesCalcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor AntagonistsPyridinesTryptaminescalcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonistsgepantsmigrainetriptans

Identifiers

PMID41709494
PMCPMC13044571

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.